Republicans have been spouting lots of good rhetoric, but what really matters is shrinking the burden of government. One very attractive option is federalism. There are things that perhaps should be done by government, but there is absolutely no reason why they require a remote, expensive, one-size-fits-all, redistributionist, unconstitutional bureaucracy in Washington.
Writing for Real Clear Markets, Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute uses highway funding as an example of how we can get much better results if Washington butts out and lets states make their own decisions. She doesn’t take this argument to its logical conclusion and urge the dismantling of the Department of Transportation, but I’ll unabashedly take that extra step. Don’t just shut it down. Bury it in a lead-lined coffin, cover it with six feet of concrete, and then add a foot of salt to make sure it doesn’t somehow spring back to life.
By ceasing to authorize expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund, and ending the 18-cent federal gasoline tax, Congress could let the trust fund expire and turn highway spending authority back to the states-along with the ability to levy the fuel tax for their own coffers. Such devolution of responsibility to states would release them from expensive federal laws and regulations associated with current highway spending, such as environmental laws that add years to project construction (remember “shovel-ready” road projects?). Nor would states be bound by Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements and Project Labor Agreements, which require the use of costly union labor on construction projects. …Removing federal restrictions would expand states’ opportunities to raise revenue by imposing highway tolls, which could ease traffic congestion by varying prices depending on when traffic is heavy or light. Such toll roads in southern California have eased congestion and raised revenue for the state. Each state would be able to fund and build the roads it wants, using a combination of taxes, bond issues, tolls, and public-private partnerships.
Would be nice, but what incentive mechanism would actually enable this to happen?
Also, I found her use of the punctuation combination ?). very interesting.
Where will they get the money for pork? They wouldn’t be able to take “highway” money and apply it to non-highway things.
Additionally, there would be no funds for their “redistribute the wealth” programs.
And finally, there would be no leverage to control speed limits nationwide. How could they threaten states with loss of funds if there are none?
I would not be surprised if 1/3 of the 18 cents goes to something other than highways.
No chance of this ever happening.
[...] But if you dig into the details of the poll, the GOP has done an inadequate job of helping people understand why various programs, departments, and agencies should be abolished. The polling data surely would be even better if Republicans were moving beyond general rhetoric and exposing specific examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. And public opinion presumably would be even stronger if Republicans were out there making a principled case that a big share of spending is for things that are not legitimate functions of the federal government. [...]
[...] But if you dig into the details of the poll, the GOP has done an inadequate job of helping people understand why various programs, departments, and agencies should be abolished. The polling data surely would be even better if Republicans were moving beyond general rhetoric and exposing specific examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. And public opinion presumably would be even stronger if Republicans were out there making a principled case that a big share of spending is for things that are not legitimate functions of the federal government. [...]
[...] Comments RSS [...]
[...] in Washington are legitimate functions of the federal government. I’ve already posted about the need to dismantle the Department of Transportation and send it back to the states, but some things shouldn’t even be handled by state and local [...]
[...] I’ve also written about the grotesque inefficiency and bloat at the Department of Transportation and urged that the building be razed to the [...]
[...] I’ve also written about the grotesque inefficiency and bloat at the Department of Transportation and urged that the building be razed to the [...]
[...] for that matter. The answer, at least in part, is to do the opposite of what Obama is proposing. Abolish the Department of Transportation and get the federal government out of the business of funding local infrastructure. [...]
[...] there any reason not to get rid of the Department of Transportation, which does things that should be handled by the private sector, or state and local [...]
[...] (spending actually should be substantially cut, including elimination of departments such as HUD, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, etc), but if maintained over a lengthy period will eliminate all red ink. [...]
[...] (spending actually should be substantially cut, including elimination of departments such as HUD, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, etc), but if maintained over a lengthy period will eliminate all red ink. [...]
[...] (spending actually should be substantially cut, including elimination of departments such as HUD, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, etc), but if maintained over a lengthy period will eliminate all red ink. [...]
[...] written before about the importance of getting rid of the Department of Transportation, and I’ve also written about Republicans getting in bed with big [...]
[...] written before about the importance of getting rid of the Department of Transportation, and I’ve also written about Republicans getting in bed with big [...]
[...] of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the idea. Rate this: Share [...]
[...] of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the idea. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. By Everette Hatcher [...]
[...] of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the [...]
[...] to shut down entire departments of the federal government, including Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Education, and [...]
[...] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, [...]
[...] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, [...]
[...] Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, [...]
[...] Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, [...]
[...] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, [...]
[...] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, etc, [...]
[...] the programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of [...]
[...] the programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of [...]
[...] the programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of [...]
[...] argue against the entire Department of Transportation, explaining that it’s not a proper function of the federal [...]